The Senate Judiciary I Committee is scheduled to hear SB 336, a bill that would repeal the matching fund provisions in North Carolina’s taxpayer campaign financing programs. Senator Phil Berger (R-Guilford, Rockingham) is the primary sponsor of this very important legislation.
As I have written, it is unconstitutional for the government to punish candidates who spend beyond a threshold amount of money by providing matching funds to their opponents.
This is how the system works: Candidate A doesn’t take taxpayer dollars. Candidate B does take political welfare. Let’s say the threshold amount is $100,000. Once Candidate A spends beyond $100,000, money starts going to Candidate B. For example, if Candidate A spends $105,000, then Candidate B gets $5,000 in matching funds.
It is even worse though because in calculating matching funds, it is the total of both Candidate A’s expenditures and the expenditures spent by independent groups that help Candidate A. For example, if Candidate A spends $80,000, but independent groups spend $50,000, Candidate B receives $30,000 in matching funds!
After the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. FEC, it is clear that matching funds are unconstitutional.
Resources
1) Davis v. FEC
2) My report explaining why after Davis, matching funds are unconstitutional.
3) NJ Legislature’s memo agreeing that matching funds likely are unconstitutional (NJ legislature ditched a taxpayer financing pilot program after this memo was drafted)
4) Arizona Attorney General agrees not to enforce a provision requiring unsubsidized candidates to file reports when they exceed the threshold. The AG agrees that in light of Davis, it will not enforce the provision. The AG’s office also states that it is the office’s understanding that legislation in Arizona will be introduced so that the state will be in compliance with Davis (which is what SB 336 does).
5) Arizona district court opinion (denying preliminary injunction to stop issuance of matching funds, for unrelated reasons) agreeing that it is highly likely that after Davis, matching funds are unconstitutional. The constitutional questions of this case will be decided soon.
